How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

You don’t need notes, if you have no intention of providing a substantive response.

Except that she’s given substantive answers to every question. As you know.

Hmmm. Trump says that all the time...as you know, I’m cured for life. As you know, the press is evil...so nope, I don’t know that at all. I know Thom Tillis isn’t wearing a mask though and looks sweaty AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

LOL, cos she does not answer anything really!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

SHE IS CORRECT. Her personal views have no bearing in this hearing. She has repeatedly stated that her personal views have no bearing on her role as a judge.

[Anonymous]

What election? Trump won in 2016 with no need for the SC to rule at all. Are you aware of that?

Because the loser conceded. Trump HAS SAID that he plans to bring ballot issues to the courts. Already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

When you answer every question with "I cannot answer that because judges" then you don't need notes. When she is challenged on stark issues, like Klobachar, Whitehouse and others have done, she flails. Badly.

Exactly! And she has been a judge for less than 3 years! So no notes needed for COVID AMY!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

LOL, cos she does not answer anything really!

Of course she does. You clearly have issues understanding what she’s saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barrett > Blumenthal

+100
She is brilliant. He’s trying to bring emotion into this. Stick to the law, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

You don’t need notes, if you have no intention of providing a substantive response.

Except that she’s given substantive answers to every question. As you know.

No, but she ducks and weaves with grace. I’ll give her that.

She is not allowed - as a current, sitting judge - to express her personal opinions, especially regarding abstract hypotheticals. What about this do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

When you answer every question with "I cannot answer that because judges" then you don't need notes. When she is challenged on stark issues, like Klobachar, Whitehouse and others have done, she flails. Badly.

Quite the opposite. She has given in-depth answers on a wide range of questions, when the question is about settled law or decisions in which she herself has ruled. She is not able to give opinions regarding any hypothetical situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

When you answer every question with "I cannot answer that because judges" then you don't need notes. When she is challenged on stark issues, like Klobachar, Whitehouse and others have done, she flails. Badly.

Quite the opposite. She has given in-depth answers on a wide range of questions, when the question is about settled law or decisions in which she herself has ruled. She is not able to give opinions regarding any hypothetical situations.

These are not "in-depth" answers. Sorry you feel that way.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How telling that Barrett needs no notes to express her thoughts. Yet every senator has reams of notes to make their points. She is utterly composed and able to recall facts effortlessly.

It’s amusing - and telling- to see DCUM’s finest calling her “dumb” and “unqualified.”

When you answer every question with "I cannot answer that because judges" then you don't need notes. When she is challenged on stark issues, like Klobachar, Whitehouse and others have done, she flails. Badly.

Quite the opposite. She has given in-depth answers on a wide range of questions, when the question is about settled law or decisions in which she herself has ruled. She is not able to give opinions regarding any hypothetical situations.

These are not "in-depth" answers. Sorry you feel that way.

It’s clear you haven’t watched the hearings in their entirety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So Blumenthal should correct the record. He was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Her position is that it is unconstitutional to deny anyone, including released felons, their right to guns but it is constitutional to deny people the right to vote. She said only “virtuous people” should be allowed to vote. Klobuchar asked what she meant by that and she wouldn’t answer. Klobuchar also asked her if it is illegal to intimidate voters and she said she couldn’t answer a hypothetical. I guess she needs to know if the intimidators are white Republicans before she could answer that.

[Anonymous]

Hirono is spending her 30 minutes talking in a stream of consciousness. Can't believe she is Senator.